Standing Committee B

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Energy Bill [Lords]

Bill O'Brien: I understand that at the end of this morning's sitting amendment No. 68 was proposed and it is now open for debate. I shall interrupt the proceedings of the Committee so that we can debate the programme resolution that has just been adopted by the Sub-Committee, but first we must conclude our debate on the amendment.Clause 16 Annual Plans

Clause 16 - Annual Plans

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 68, in 
clause 16, page 14, line 14, at end insert— 
 '(1A) In the case of work carried out, or designations urgently made, the NDA shall, with the permission of the Secretary of State, amend its annual plan, even though it may already have been made and submitted.'.—[Mr. Laurence Robertson.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Bill O'Brien: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 26, in
clause 16, page 15, line 21, at end add— 
 '(9) In the event that at any time during the year to which the plan relates the NDA has operated, or acquired with a view to operating, any nuclear operating facilities within the terms of section 6(1) or otherwise they shall include in the plan a full explanation of the reasons for acquiring or operating such facilities, an estimation of the length of time that the said facilities may operate and their strategy for bringing the operations of said facilities to an end.'. 
No. 70, in 
schedule 3, page 162, line 5, after 'State', insert 
 'and such a plan has been laid before each House of Parliament'. 
No. 71, in 
schedule 3, page 162, line 9, at end insert 
 'following consultation with the Secretary of State and the revision to the plan being laid before each House of Parliament. 
 (3) The NDA may revise its plan if required to carry out work, or receiving a designation, considered to be urgent.'.

Michael Weir: I want to speak to amendment No. 26, which is in the group. I shall not detain the Committee as we have already debated the matter in connection with an amendment to clause 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I got that right this time.
 The amendment relates to the role of the NDA in continuing to run nuclear power stations, about which we should by now have a sense of deja vu. The previous amendment sought to restrict it to a period of 12 months, although I think that is too restrictive. 
 However, there should be a mechanism for making it clear that any such use is temporary; there should be a method of bringing it to an end as quickly as is practicable, except that that may not be within a few months, as closing down a nuclear generator is not merely a matter of throwing a switch. 
 The solution proposed is to put into the annual plan, only in the years when a station has been acquired, a statement of why it is still running, an estimation of the time that it may operate and a strategy for bringing it to an end. If, as the Minister has repeatedly assured us, the NDA is concerned only with decommissioning, he should have no problem in accepting the amendment, as it is not deliberately prescriptive. For example, the NDA may be able to say that the generator is allowed to continue for some time to fill an energy gap until other facilities come on stream; the amendment does not seek to impose time constraints. I accept that in some cases a generator may have to run for a few years. 
 The Minister assured us that the Government have a target for closing down existing stations, and the Bill sets up an authority to run decommissioning. The amendment merely seeks a public statement and an agreed strategy to bring those two together in specific circumstances: when the NDA takes over a station and thus becomes a generator. That is essential if the NDA is to be independent and operate with the promised transparency.

Stephen Timms: I assure the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who spoke to amendment No. 26, that concerns about the NDA operating nuclear power stations, other than when decommissioning is pending, are unfounded. The rationale for the continued operation of facilities designated to the NDA will be fully covered by the combined effect of the NDA strategy and the annual plans and report. The strategy will include operational facilities. The NDA will be required to explain the decisions reached in its strategy and to keep it under review. The annual plan will set out how the NDA will carry out its functions and deliver its strategy for each site installation and facility, including running costs, capital expenditure and income. The annual report, which will be laid before Parliament, will set out what it has done to deliver its strategy and plans for all designated installations, sites and facilities. That is why I think that amendment No. 26 is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Michael Weir: I accept, to some extent, what the Minister said, but what concerns me is that there does not seem anywhere to be a specific statement by the NDA about the anticipated time that a nuclear power station may continue to operate. It is a point that has been canvassed before, but there is still no specific obligation on the NDA to say that it is taking over a particular power station or that it anticipates that it will run for two or three years, or six months, or whatever. It would be beneficial to have some indication of that. I accept that it cannot be prescriptive and that it could not run over that period, but some indication would be useful.

Stephen Timms: The information that the NDA will provide will shed light on that matter, and will include the strategy for each site. That is likely to provide reassurance on the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that I can be more helpful on amendments Nos. 68, 70 and 71, which would require the NDA to lay the annual plan, including any revisions, before Parliament before it could come into effect. As willing as I was on the earlier point to reconsider that, it is important not to introduce unhelpful delay into NDA planning—a concern recognised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)—so it is more likely to concern the annual plan and revisions, than the earlier instance that we considered. I want to ensure that we would not be creating any unintended, difficult consequences if we were to go down the road advocated. I should also like to ensure what the implications for Scotland would be. In principle, the purpose behind his amendment is right, and if he is willing to withdraw it I give him an undertaking to reconsider the matter and see what I can introduce on Report.

Laurence Robertson: I warmly welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. O'Brien. Given the Minister's sympathetic approach and reassurance, I am happy to wait for what he comes up with on Report, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill O'Brien: We come now to the motion of the Programming Sub-Committee, copies of which are on the Table at the end of the Room, and I suggest that hon. Members collect one.
 That the Order of the Committee of 20th May 2004 be amended by the substitution for the Table of the following Table:-   ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings Clauses 1 to 5, Schedule 1,6.00 pm on 27th May Clauses 6 to 14, Schedule 2, Clauses 15 and 16, Schedule 3, Clauses 17 to 30, Schedule 4, Clauses 31 to 41, Schedule 5, Clauses 42, Schedule 6, Clauses 43  to 48, Schedule 7, Clause 49,  Schedule 8, Clause 50, Schedule  9, Clauses 51 to 54, Schedule 10,  Clauses 55 and 56, Schedule 11 And Clauses 57 to 64.Schedule 12, Clauses 65 and 66, 5.00 pm on 24th June Schedule 13, Clauses 67 to 72, Schedule 14, Clauses 73 to 78, Schedule 15, Clauses 79 to 96, Schedule 16, Clauses 97 to 135, Schedule 17, Clauses 136 to 138, Schedule 18, Clauses 139 and 140, Schedule 19, Clauses 141 to 156, Schedules 21 and 21, Clauses 157 to 170, Schedule 22, Clauses 171 to 193, Schedule 23, Clause 194, new Clauses, new Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Bill O'Brien: The motion applies unless we conclude schedule 12 before 6 pm. Failing that, we shall proceed until 6 pm this afternoon. That is the motion; the hon. Member for Lewes now wishes to move an amendment.

Norman Baker: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed amendment, to leave out ''6.00 pm on 27 May'' and insert ''5 pm on 8 June''.
 My amendment seeks to move the knife to 5 pm on the Tuesday we return. I have moved it because, first, it is inherently unsatisfactory that a sitting should be extended at merely a few hours' notice, which is inconvenient to me and possibly other hon. Members. Secondly, there is no desire among any hon. Members here to spin this out; all of us have accepted the time that the Government have allocated to the Bill and are fully in line with the Government's intentions on the completion of its Committee stage, so it is merely a matter of when the knife falls. 
 Thirdly, certain clauses may not be discussed at all this afternoon, yet there could be time left at the end of consideration of the Bill. That would not be satisfactory and would be a poor use of the Committee's time. Fourthly, certain hon. Members present—I am not thinking of myself—want to speak 
 on later clauses and may be prevented from doing so by that. Fifthly, the Government Whip's suggestion that the break should come at clause 63 and schedule 12 is inherently unsatisfactory, because they are in the middle of the section about the nuclear constabulary. 
 If I may say so, that may put you in a difficult position, Mr. O'Brien, because when we return on Tuesday, hon. Members may well want to draw attention to issues on which the knife has fallen but which are tangentially attached to the issues that can properly be discussed then. 
 For all those reasons, I ask the Government to show some flexibility. They would lose nothing by accepting my amendment. In fact, it would improve the smooth running of the Committee and ensure that democratic processes worked properly. 
 Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in
clause 16, page 14, line 39, at end insert—
'(g) a report to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of funds set aside by nuclear operators, other than the NDA, for decommissioning and clean up.'.
 The amendment would include that report in the provisions for annual plans. The Minister has said more than once that it is Government policy that the private sector operators—British Energy most notably or, theoretically, anyone else in future—will bear the responsibility for their own decommissioning and clean-up and that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is the body of last resort. I entirely agree with that policy. The amendment would ensure that that matter was kept under review and that there was confidence that the private company and any others were making proper provision for such matters. We do not want British Energy or another body to say that it is in financial difficulties and cannot meet its responsibilities, resulting in a further bill of £48 billion for the taxpayer. The NDA is a body of last resort, and therefore has an interest in ensuring that the private sector is making proper provision for such eventualities, as do the Government. 
 I am not sure that this is the right place in the Bill to raise this matter, and if the Minister makes that point, I shall concede it. However, I hope that he will accept 
 that there is a need for a mechanism, whether it is achieved through this annual plan or by some other means, to ensure that the private sector is making proper provision for such eventualities. I fear that the backstop that the Bill provides, in which the NDA will pick up the tab if everything goes wrong, is attractive to the private sector. If the Minister is not happy with the amendment, perhaps he will say what other mechanism is in place to ensure that British Energy—or any other operator—makes such provision.

Laurence Robertson: I, too, am not sure that this is the right place in the Bill to discuss the matter, nor am I sure that the NDA's responsibilities should extend as far as that. However, the hon. Member for Lewes raises an important point. I will be glad to hear what the Minister has to say about the general principle of someone, somewhere, ensuring that people who operate nuclear sites make adequate provision for the future. It is an unusual industry, in so far as the running and revenue costs while generation is taking place are not the whole story. I therefore support the principle of the amendment, and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the matter.

Stephen Timms: I am rather puzzled by the amendment, because it seems to me that whereas the hon. Member for Lewes has argued consistently during the Committee's discussions that there should be as wide a distance as possible between the NDA and private sector operators, he is now promoting, through the amendment, a more intimate relationship between them than is in the interests of the cause for which he argues.
 Information on provisions made against clean-up will have to be included in the accounts and annual reports of any private sector operator. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that the NDA will not have the requisite financial expertise to analyse those and to take a view on whether a third party, with which it has no connection, will be able to meet its decommissioning and clean-up obligations. Moreover, we would not want the NDA to commit time and resources to doing that, because its clear focus should be on decommissioning and clean-up. We do not want the NDA to be distracted by having to build up a capability for monitoring private sector operators. 
 If there were any prospect of a private sector operator not being able to discharge its liabilities, the Government would have to make a judgment on the extent of any shortfall as that arose. Ministers, rather than the NDA, would be responsible for doing that, and for taking a view on what, if anything, it would be appropriate or necessary for the Government to take on. They would do that in full recognition of the financial implications.

Norman Baker: I tend to agree that the NDA is not the appropriate body to do that, but it was a vehicle on which to raise the point, as the Minister recognises. However, can the Minister assure me that there is a system in place by which Ministers would monitor any
 difficulties as they occurred, rather than only recognising a problem when it has manifested itself significantly?

Stephen Timms: As I said, the information on which that judgment could be based would be in the accounts and annual report. That does not exclude something startling happening suddenly. One could consider what happened to British Energy as an example of that although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are going through a restructuring of British Energy, which I hope will enable it to meet all its obligations. However, the NDA should not be taking on responsibility for monitoring that area; I believe that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. The NDA may be a source of advice on the costs involved in the clean-up of a particular site, and clause 10 of the Bill provides for it to be able to do that.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue and satisfied that the Minister recognises its importance and has addressed it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 17 - Annual reports

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in
clause 17, page 15, line 24, after 'State', insert
'and to the Scottish Ministers'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 155, in 
clause 17, page 15, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

Norman Baker: These amendments would make the modest change of involving Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament more comprehensively. Scottish Ministers have an interest in how the NDA operates, discharges its responsibilities and carries out its functions, not only when a matter relates directly to Scotland, so that they can form an overall view of the NDA's performance. To make an overall assessment of the NDA, Scottish Ministers need fuller access to material. That is the purpose of the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).

Stephen Timms: If the NDA's report contains anything relating to its responsibilities as set out in clauses 9(2) or 9(3), which deal with the handling of devolved matters, the NDA must send a copy to Scottish Ministers as well as to the Secretary of State. Scottish Ministers must then lay the report before the Scottish Parliament. If the report does not contain anything relating to what is set out in subsections (2) or (3), that requirement does not apply. The effect of clause 9 on Scottish sites, such as Dounreay, is that they would
 have to be cleared of all hazardous materials stored on the site. Scottish Ministers would not automatically receive a copy only if clean-up was virtually complete, therefore it would not have to be laid before the Scottish Parliament.
 Documents are laid before Parliament or the Scottish Parliament only when they have a clear interest in them. The amendment would mean that every NDA report would have to be laid before the Scottish Parliament by Scottish Ministers regardless of whether they have an interest in it. That would be unnecessary. If Scottish Ministers were not formally sent a copy of the report by the NDA, they would still be able to see copies of it. However, the requirement to lay the report applies only if there is a Scottish interest.

Norman Baker: The Minister is telling me what I know to be the Government's policy; they have adopted that position on other legislation. In that sense it is consistent. My point was that Scottish Ministers might have a wider interest in the NDA's operation, even if a report does not relate directly to Scotland. The way that the NDA discharges its responsibilities in England and Wales affects the allocation of resources, time and effort to Scottish matters. That is why it is important to include Scottish Ministers. However, I have had my say so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 158, in
clause 17, page 16, line 24, after 'Parliament', insert 'without undue delay'.
 The amendment would add the words ''without undue delay'' to subsection (6). That would emphasis a point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. To fulfil that duty, Parliament should have access to documents as soon as possible rather than when the Secretary of State gets round to it. The amendment is an attempt to emphasise the need for parliamentary scrutiny so I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to it.

Stephen Timms: Unfortunately, the amendment would have exactly the opposite effect to the one that the hon. Gentleman argues for. The convention is that the Secretary of State lays reports before Parliament not when she gets round to it, but as soon as possible after she receives them. The wording of the amendment, which specifies ''without undue delay'', would imply that there could be an acceptable or due delay in the Secretary of State laying the NDA's report before Parliament. That is clearly not what the hon. Gentleman would want, and on that basis I hope he will quickly withdraw his amendment.

Norman Baker: Far be it from me to load the scales even further on the side of the Government against Parliament. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for his private advice on amendment No. 6, which I shall not seek to move.
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Duties to operate installations and provide treatment etc.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 149, in
clause 19, page 17, line 35, at end insert
'to ensure minimal adverse impact upon the environment'.
 I would like to spell out the requirements in subsection (2)(c), which relate to the management of the land. My point is a sort of return to the argument we had about the principal duty earlier. The Minister may say that he anticipates my comments, so I shall anticipate his instead. He may say that the general and specific duties also mentioned in that subsection imply what the amendment specifies, and that there is a general duty to ensure minimal adverse impact on the environment. I would argue, however, for the importance of that being clearly understood. It is helpful to emphasise the importance of minimising the adverse impact on the environment by spelling it out in the Bill.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right; there is already a clear requirement on the NDA to take account of environmental concerns. The problem in this case, however, goes further than that. As in our earlier debate, the amendment would cut across the well-established lines of regulatory responsibility by giving the NDA a duty to ensure or deliver something that is the proper responsibility of someone else; namely, the nuclear regulators.
 Obviously, the NDA will have to work within the existing regulatory framework and work closely with the regulators. Clause 12 recognises that by placing a duty on the NDA to have particular regard to the need to safeguard the environment. My officials, with the support of the nuclear regulators, have been drafting a memorandum of understanding that will be agreed between the NDA and each of the regulators, which will set out the basis of their working relationships. 
 The responsibility for complying with environmental regulation must rest with the person with control of a nuclear site, installation or facility. The responsibility to enforce such regulations must rest with the regulators. It is important that the Bill does not change that framework, and I fear that the amendment would do that. It would interpose the NDA into the existing regulatory arrangements in a way that would create uncertainty and undermine 
 their effectiveness. I am confident that the independent regulators can deliver the outcome that the hon. Member for Lewes seeks—he has already paid tribute to those involved in the matter—through their commitment and expertise in enforcing the environmental regulations. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker: It is a rather false premise to say that the amendment cuts across the regulator. The regulator has duties that are set out in statute and those duties are not changed in any way by this amendment, nor were they in the earlier instance that the Minister referred to. The regulator will have a right to expect the NDA to ensure that there is a minimal adverse impact on the environment, and I am merely proposing to write into the Bill what the regulator would require of the NDA in any case. The amendment does not cut across the regulator's message to the NDA; it reinforces it. It would not be cutting across the regulator to write in good practice. We would expect the NDA to ensure that there is a minimal adverse impact on the environment. However, the Minister has given me his views and I have given the Committee mine.
 The Minister mentioned a memorandum of understanding. I am glad that that is being constructed I hope that he recognises that it is an important document that should be available more widely. When it is ready, will he place a copy in the Library of the House? 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Designation as a related site for the purposes of s. 21

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in
clause 22, page 21, line 30, at end add—
'(g) any other event or process arising from nuclear activities leading to the occurrence of contamination.'.
 The amendment is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and help the Government. Subsection (4) relates to what constitutes contamination and the reasons why contamination takes place. My amendment simply adds a catch-all line that might encompass something that is not covered in the rest of the subsection.

Stephen Timms: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do and I accept that his intent is helpful. However, his amendment is not necessary because clause 22(4) already provides comprehensive coverage when it comes to defining what constitutes contamination by nuclear activities. That is the basis for the NDA being given designated responsibility. I agree with what he wants to achieve, but it is covered in the Bill.
 On the point put to me earlier by the hon. Member for Lewes about the memorandum of understanding, a draft copy is on the Department of Trade and Industry website; it was published with the draft Bill. When it is finalised by the NDA and the regulators, it will be placed in the Library of the House.

Laurence Robertson: As the Minister is satisfied with the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Duty to comply with directions under s. 21

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in
clause 23, page 22, line 5, leave out 'negative' and insert 'affirmative'.
 Briefly, the clause relates to the duty to comply with a direction and gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order providing that a certain person in control of a site is exempt from certain directions. The order is subject to the negative procedure, but I seek to change that to the affirmative procedure. It is a matter of giving the House of Commons much more time to consider the exemption from a direction.

Stephen Timms: The reason for the provision is that it would not be reasonable in all circumstances for the NDA to have a direction-making power over, for example, a Ministry of Defence site for which the NDA has been given clean-up responsibilities but which is and will continue primarily to be the responsibility of the Government. Although, as my hon. Friend mentioned on Tuesday, it is unlikely that the NDA would be given responsibility for an NDA site when the MOD still had a defence-related interest in the site and the Crown or its appointee retained control, such circumstances cannot be ruled out. It is possible that parts of a site designated to the NDA for clean-up might be in use for other matters that have nothing to do with the clean-up process and in such circumstances it would not be appropriate for the NDA to be able to direct the person with control of the site on those non-clean-up matters. That is the reason for the exclusion.
 The choice of the negative procedure is based on well-established precedents. The affirmative procedure is usually used in circumstances involving the exercise of powers that would substantially affect provisions in Acts of Parliament or powers to impose financial charges, other financial provisions, skeleton powers or when there is consideration of special importance. I do not think that any of those circumstances apply in this case. The sites, installations and facilities in question are those operated by or on behalf of the Crown. Either a Crown appointee or the NDA will be responsible for the activity and in determining the scope of the NDA's control in a particular set of circumstances. That does not give rise to considerations of such importance as to require debate in both Houses. 
 With that information, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister said that the clause is designed to suit a situation that is unlikely to come about. I do not have a lot of trust in the negative resolution procedure, which is why I proposed the affirmative procedure, but I accept the Minister's analysis and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Financial responsibilities of NDA

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Robert Key: I thank the Minister for making available to the Committee earlier this morning the written statement about which I made representations. It was very helpful to have that. It does nothing but seek to move swiftly to the purpose of the new NDA, so, in the interests of moving on swiftly, I shall sit down.

Stephen Timms: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his acuteness in spotting that reference on the Order Paper. I am glad that it was possible to provide the statement.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Expenditure and receipts of NDA

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in
clause 25, page 23, line 33, at end insert
'by order approved by a resolution of the House of Commons'.
 This is a serious amendment and refers to grants that the Secretary of State may make to the NDA. I also thank the Minister for the very helpful statement, which identifies that the total cost of the NDA's programme over the next century is £50 billion; perhaps more importantly, the initial figure is some £2 billion a year. It seems to me that the House of Commons should approve grants of that magnitude to the NDA, which is the purpose of my amendment.

Norman Baker: I support the amendment, which is apposite and important. We are talking about large sums of public money and about a situation in which there is some doubt, at least initially and until the matters have settled down, about how the NDA is using its money, how accountable that is and what procedures are in place. We discussed the matter earlier, so I will not repeat those points. As the hon.
 Gentleman rightly said, it would be quite wrong to hand out billions of pounds of public money without some say-so from the House of Commons.
 There is also the unsatisfactory situation in which there is a dispute—let us put it no stronger than that—about state aid. We have heard about a legal challenge in Europe to the Bill and on that basis it would be very important, especially at the present time, to subject such monies to proper discussion in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Stephen Timms: The amendment would require a grant to a non-departmental public body, which is part of a departmental budget presented to Parliament in the estimates, to be subject to a separate approval process. I accept that £2 billion is a substantial sum, but it is appropriate for its approval process to be the same as that which applies to much larger sums for spending on schools, hospitals and transport.
 Approval and oversight of all Government expenditure is carried out through the estimates and supply procedure. That includes grants to non-departmental public bodies and it concludes with the Appropriations Act 1994. There is no case for taking that sum outside of the normal procedures, so I hope that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury accepts that the amendment is unnecessary.

Laurence Robertson: I recognise that Parliament initially authorises the payment of money. Quite often, payments that are made to the health service, for example, are itemised and discussed, and that was what was behind the amendment. Given that it would be a detour from ordinary parliamentary scrutiny, reluctantly I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 17, in 
clause 25, page 23, line 39, at end add— 
 '( ) In determining— 
 (a) whether to make a grant under this section to the NDA, and 
 (b) the amount of such a grant, 
 the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to the extent to which he considers that the NDA should exercise its power to make grants or loans of the kind mentioned in section 13(2)(c) in order to mitigate the effects of the cessation (whether before or after designation) of the operation of a designated installation.'.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Borrowing by the nda

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: The clause relates to borrowing by the NDA and it states the circumstances in which the NDA may borrow from the Secretary of State. Will the Minister explain how that information is made public and how it is conveyed to the House of Commons?

Stephen Timms: The arrangements are not unusual for an executive non-departmental public body. The NDA will be funded entirely by grant payments by the Secretary of State, but there may be circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman said, in which it makes good operational sense for the NDA to borrow money to optimise its contractual arrangements for delivering clean-up. The clause allows the NDA to borrow conventionally from the Secretary of State or, with her agreement, from other sources.
 The borrowing will be communicated to those who take an interest in such matters through the published NDA annual reports and plans. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that that will give him and others the information in which they will be interested. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Government guarantees for NDA borrowing

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 101, in
clause 28, page 25, line 9, at end insert—
 '(2A) Before making such a guarantee under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall assess the ability of the NDA to meet its commitments as contained in section 26(4), and shall not give a guarantee under subsection (2) unless satisfied that the NDA can meet those commitments.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 102, in
clause 28, page 25, line 10, leave out 
 'as soon as practicable after' 
 and insert 'Before'.

Laurence Robertson: A moment ago, we heard about NDA borrowing. Clause 28 refers to Government guarantees for NDA borrowing. Does the Minister think that guaranteed borrowing falls in the same category as grants to the NDA? It seems to me that the two are slightly different, because there is no specified amount that the NDA can borrow.
 I am not saying that the NDA should not borrow. I am saying that, if the Secretary of State gives a guarantee to the NDA 
''in such manner, and on such terms, as he thinks fit'', 
she should assess the ability of the NDA to meet its commitment before giving the guarantee. I do not know the exact figure that we are talking about, but it is alarming that the taxpayer could be asked to underwrite sums of the magnitude that we are talking about without any reference to Parliament.

Stephen Timms: The arrangements set out in the clause are the normal ones for such circumstances. The Bill sets out an overall framework of parliamentary oversight and public accountability at what is, I think, an appropriate level considering the NDA's strategy.
 The annual planning and the annual reporting process give Parliament the opportunity to consider the big picture of the organisation.
 I have again considered whether there is a case for strengthening the arrangements for parliamentary oversight, and I do not think that there is a strong case for doing so. As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment No. 101 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the NDA can meet any commitments entered into before guaranteeing NDA borrowing. That is unnecessary, because the NDA is entirely dependent on the Secretary of State for its funding. Any income that the NDA generates must be returned to the Secretary of State. 
 The Secretary of State will need to fund the NDA to meet its obligations and carry out its functions, including meeting any debt repayments. The ability of the NDA to meet its commitments will flow from the funding provided by the Government. Any guarantee provided by the Secretary of State about NDA borrowing would simply recognise that. 
 The question of whether the NDA should be allowed to borrow money from third parties is covered in clause 26. The NDA requires the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury before it can do so. At that point, the Secretary of State should decide whether the borrowing is appropriate, whether the Government should fund it and whether a guarantee, if necessary, should be given.

Laurence Robertson: The issue is different from that of making grants, which are more controllable by the Secretary of State. This is a borrowing guarantee. Borrowing can run out of control, so I stress my concern about the clause. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 4 agreed to. 
 Clauses 31 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Nuclear transfer schemes

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in
clause 41, page 37, line 14, at end insert
'the details of, and reasons for, which must be clearly set out.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 134, in
clause 41, page 37, line 15, at end insert 
 'and lay his proposals before Parliament at least one month before making the proposed transfer, except in the case where the transfer is considered urgent.'. 
No. 135, in 
clause 41, page 37, line 20, at end insert 
 'and lay his proposals before Parliament at least one month before making the proposed transfer, except in the case where the transfer is considered urgent.'. 
 No. 136, in 
clause 41, page 37, line 25, at end insert 
 'and lay his proposals before Parliament at least one month before making the proposed transfer, except in the case where the transfer is considered urgent.'. 
No. 139, in 
clause 43, page 39, line 14, at end add— 
 '(5) The Secretary of State must lay any proposals to transfer property, rights and liabilities before Parliament at least one month before that transfer takes place, other than in cases where the transfer could be considered urgent.'.

Laurence Robertson: Amendment No. 133 asks for the details of, and reasons for, any nuclear transfer to be set out. The other amendments in the group would require the proposals for such transfers to be laid before Parliament. I presume that given our earlier discussions, the Minister will not agree to the amendments but I felt that it was worth tabling them.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right that my response to these amendments is similar to my response to his earlier ones.
 Amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 136 would require transfer schemes to be laid before Parliament one month before they came into effect. That would cause difficulty, because transfer schemes may contain commercially confidential information. Although there are statutory provisions to exclude commercially sensitive information from the NDA's strategy in paragraph 6(5) to schedule 2, there are no such provisions for transfer schemes. A document laid before Parliament clearly becomes public, so there would be particular difficulties. 
 The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the arguments on amendments Nos. 133 and 139. I hope that, like last time, I am able to persuade him that they are unnecessary.

Laurence Robertson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 5 agreed to. 
 Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 43 - Transfers with the consent of the transferor

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: I tabled amendment No. 138 to this clause to be consistent with earlier amendments relating to British Energy. It would have added British Energy to the list of organisations that must be
 consulted before being taken over. On the basis of previous discussions, I do not think that there is any need to pursue the point further.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Transfer of Nuclear Liabilities Investment Portfolio

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: Will the Minister give a brief explanation of the rationale behind the clause?

Stephen Timms: When the NDA takes on responsibility for cleaning up BNFL's sites it should get the benefit of the fund established by BNFL to meet its clean-up costs. Clause 45 provides for the nuclear liabilities investment portfolio to be transferred by scheme to the Secretary of State and then paid into the consolidated fund. The value of the nuclear liabilities investment portfolio, which on 31 March 2003 was £3.84 billion, will then be credited to the NDA's nuclear decommissioning funding account provided for in clause 34. That is the rationale for the clause.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Extinguishment of BNFL losses for tax purposes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: This clause has a rather alarming title, and it says that
''after the trigger date, all the relevant losses of every BNFL company arising before that date shall be treated for the purposes of corporation tax as extinguished.'' 
That seems to wipe the slate clean. I suppose that the Treasury has agreed to that. Can the Minister quantify the losses that will flow from that provision?

Stephen Timms: The accumulated tax losses in BNFL companies that have built up over time largely arise, one way or another, from provisions made in BNFL's accounts for the future costs of nuclear decommissioning and clean-up. In other words, they relate largely to deductions made in the past for the future expenses of nuclear decommissioning and clean-up. The losses will be extinguished when the NDA takes responsibility for decommissioning and clean-up under clause 24 or when assets and liabilities are transferred from BNFL under clause 42, whichever occurs first. I do not have a figure for the sum involved,
 but I will certainly see whether I can provide that for the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 7 agreed to. 
 Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 8 agreed to. 
 Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 51 - Supplementary powers of the Secretary of State, the NDA and the UKAEA

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in
clause 51, page 43, line 16, at end insert
'but shall not do so without first consulting the NDA.'.

Laurence Robertson: The amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the NDA before entering into agreements for the purposes of accepting or imposing contractual obligations. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is not necessary, but a requirement to consult the NDA before entering into those agreements seems slightly lacking from subsection (1).

Stephen Timms: When the Secretary of State uses the powers here in relation to a transfer scheme involving the NDA, I agree that the NDA should be consulted and that is exactly what clause 41(3) provides for. It imposes a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the NDA before making any transfer scheme that involves the NDA or is connected with the NDA carrying out its functions. The power in clause 51 may also be used in relation to transfer schemes that do not involve the NDA and are not connected with it carrying out its functions. If the Secretary of State decided to privatise parts of a new BNFL or UKAEA, that would be done by transfer schemes. In those cases, I do not think that the Secretary of State would need to consult the NDA, because it would not have any direct or indirect interest. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that when the NDA has an interest, it would indeed be consulted, but the requirement for it to be consulted in other circumstances is unnecessary.

Laurence Robertson: The clause refers in subsections (2), (3) and (4) to agreements that the NDA and the UKAEA may enter into, so I suppose it is somewhat
 confusing, but I accept the Minister's explanation for why it is not included at that particular point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 52 to 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 55 - The Civil Nuclear Constabulary

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: This takes me back to the time I spent discussing such matters in relation to the Police Reform Act 2002. Clearly, there is some crossover between the proposed civil nuclear constabulary, the normal police forces and the Ministry of Defence police, some of whose duties might overlap. Can the Minister comment on subsection (2)(b), which gives the constabulary the duty to safeguard nuclear material in Great Britain and elsewhere? A number of issues arise from that, which I would like briefly to explore.
 The first issue is that nuclear material may not simply be on licensed sites; it may, for example, be transported across the country by road, rail or air. Will the proposed constabulary have the authorisation to accompany nuclear material when it is being transported, and how will that power link in with that of British Transport police? Have British Transport police been consulted on this and is the Minister confident that there is no overlap of responsibility, or indeed potential duplication of effort, from those movements? 
 The second question relates to the work that might overlap with the MOD police. The Minister will be aware that the MOD keeps nuclear material on its sites, and the MOD police have their own regime under which they operate. Is it anticipated that the civil nuclear constabulary will safeguard nuclear material in Great Britain and elsewhere on MOD sites? I appreciate it is called a civil nuclear constabulary, but on the other hand the terms of subsection (2)(b) do not specify nuclear material that has arisen through the operation of civil nuclear facilities. Therefore, I take it to mean that that could apply to MOD material. Will he clarify that for me? 
 Thirdly, can the Minister clarify the purpose of the phrase ''and elsewhere'' in subsection (2)(b)? Is he suggesting that the civil nuclear constabulary will have authority to act outside the borders of Great Britain? That seems rather odd to me. Does that refer to British territories overseas, or does he anticipate some other purpose?

Stephen Timms: The clause requires the civil nuclear police authority to maintain the civil nuclear constabulary, and it sets out the constabulary's
 primary functions. The hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in subsection (2), and, if I have written his questions down correctly, the answers are as follows.
 The members of the constabulary can accompany nuclear material when it is in transit; that is the intention of the clause's drafting. British Transport police have been consulted on these arrangements, and I am satisfied that there is no unnecessary duplication between the duties of the civil nuclear constabulary and others. 
 The duties of the civil nuclear constabulary would not extend to the protection of MOD sites, which answers the hon. Gentleman's second question. Thirdly, it is envisaged that there will be occasions when members of the civil nuclear constabulary will safeguard material outside Great Britain—for example, when there is a shipment they will be able to accompany the material and provide protection in that way. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 11 agreed to. 
 Clauses 57 and 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - jurisdiction of constabulary

Robert Key: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in
clause 59, page 48, line 25, at end insert—
 '(5A) Where a member of the Constabulary has been requested by a constable of—
(a) a police force for a police area in Great Britain;
(b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(c) the Ministry of Defence Police; or
(d) the British Transport Police Force,
(''the requesting force'') to assist him in the execution of his duties in relation to a particular incident, investigation or operation, members of the Constabulary have for the purposes of that incident, investigation or operation the same powers and privileges as constables of the requesting force.
 (5B) Members of the Constabulary have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area—
(a) in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence, or
(b) if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury.
 (5C) But members of the Constabulary have powers and privileges by virtue of subsection (5B) only if—
(a) they are in uniform or have with them documentary evidence that they are members of the Constabulary, and
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (5A) by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 11—Provision of assistance to other forces— 
 '(1) The chief constable of the Constabulary may, on the application of the chief officer of any relevant force, provide constables or other assistance for the purpose of enabling that force to meet any special demand on its resources. 
 (2) Where a member of the Constabulary is provided for the assistance of a relevant force under this section— 
 (a) he shall be under the direction and control of the chief officer of that force; and 
 (b) he shall have the same powers and privileges as a member of that force. 
 (3) Constables are not to be regarded as provided for the assistance of a relevant force under this section in a case where assistance is provided under section 59. 
 (4) In this section— 
 ''chief officer'' means— 
 (a) the chief officer of the police force for a police area in Great Britain; 
 (b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; 
 (c) the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force; or 
 (d) the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police; 
 ''relevant force'' means— 
 (a) the police force for a police area in Great Britain; 
 (b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland; 
 (c) the British Transport Police Force; or 
 (d) the Ministry of Defence Police.'.

Robert Key: Chapter 3, which sets up the civil nuclear constabulary, is more important than we might think. It is a quirk of our constitution that this police force is answerable to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and a number of other police forces are in a similar position. What we decide today will be important to every police force in the country, every Home Office constabulary in our constituencies and the other police forces, including the MOD and the other military police forces.
 It is part of our history that sometimes we find a police force accountable to a local police authority and sometimes to a Minister and to Parliament. When Samuel Pepys set up a security force for the royal dockyards, little did he think that one day in May 2004 the consequences of that action by the Government of the day would still be important, but that is when it all started. Pilfering from the royal dockyards was a serious problem, so he set up the Admiralty constabularies. They predate anything that we would recognise as a Home Office constabulary today. 
 So it continued for many years. The Pepys bobbies were part of the establishment until the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. I served on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill, which was important because it transformed the MOD police from special constabulary gatekeepers into full constabulary officers trained to the same standards as any other police force in the country. 
 The 1987 Act was reformed by the Armed Forces Acts 1996 and 2001. I served on both Standing Committees. Under those Acts, the Secretary of State for Defence is responsible to Parliament, but now there is a new police authority, giving a modest 
 measure of independence. We shall shortly reconsider those slightly arcane procedures under the promised new tri-service Acts. 
 Most nations have decided that there is a need for an armed civilian police force. Some countries, such as France, achieve that by having a police force and a gendarmerie. Other nations, such as the United States, have county and federal police as well as a national guard. Most of us have our county constabularies. I am proud to have in Wiltshire the oldest as well as the best police force, hence its motto, Primus et Optimus. 
 The Home Office said many years ago that it did not have responsibility for policing the railways and that it did not know much about rolling stock, so British Transport police were established, answerable to the Secretary of State for Transport and accountable to Parliament. In 1992, when I was a Minister at the new Department of National Heritage, I was responsible for the Royal Parks police, who have full constabulary power. They are not and never were park keepers, and a Minister is still accountable to Parliament for them. The current process of integrating them with the Metropolitan police seems to have ground to a halt. In 1954, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary was set up as an armed police force. 
 So, we have four police forces in this country that are accountable to Ministers. They are not subject to any direct democratic accountability, although the Metropolitan police are very indirectly accountable through the Mayor of London. Most of us have county constabularies. The UKAEA constabulary has about 500 officers and is accountable to Parliament through the Department of Trade and Industry. The Bill proposes a completely new structure, most of which is very welcome indeed. The problem is that it does not go far enough, which is what I wish to address. 
 The Bill transforms the special constables into full constabulary officers, but their power has been severely limited, such that the UKAEA Police Federation believes that there are consequences for national security and that they must be addressed. It has written to me to say that there must be concessions on powers so that its members can act in an emergency properly to carry out their duties. The general secretary of the federation said: 
 ''It is imperative that we achieve this concession for various reasons, foremost of which is the fact that we have an enormous responsibility in our area of work. Without this fundamental requirement, when we encounter policing needs in areas where we would not normally have constabulary powers, we are helpless to react. Moreover, we have examined case studies and scenarios where the absence of such emergency powers could have dire implications and consequences for national security.'' 
Clearly, the matter must be taken seriously. 
 The federation also argues that emergency powers are required for the simple reason that members of the public expect all police officers, especially those in uniform, to act in an emergency and protect the public interest. It is strange that the Government have recently granted British Transport police and MOD police exactly those powers. The federation would like identical concessions to be made for its constabulary. 
 The matter was addressed during the Bill's passage through another place, but pretty perfunctorily. I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, who will have to answer these questions. He did not volunteer to be responsible for a police force, let alone learn about the complexities of it. 
 The debate in the other place was extraordinary. When it was put to the Minister, Lord Triesman, that the police federation's request was sensible and should be granted, he stated: 
 ''While we know that there has been support in some circles for the proposition, there is not widespread support for the proposition from the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is not at all clear that such a proposition would be welcomed by all bodies involved in public policing.'' 
I find that extraordinary, because I have a letter dated 9 February 2004 from the chief constable of Staffordshire, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers chief constable with responsibility for this matter. He wrote to Mr. Keith Latham, the assistant director of the nuclear regulatory branch of the DTI, to say: 
 ''There has been extensive debate around the wider police family. Concessions have been made in terms of police powers to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police to act in an emergency, particularly when they come across something in an area where they would not normally have Constabulary powers. 
 We would be content for identical concessions to be made in respect of the UKAEAC because members of the public would expect police officers, especially in uniform, to act in an emergency they happen to come across.'' 
 That is a strange conflict of opinions. Will the Minister justify not acceding to the federation's request? Under this clause, if a uniformed UKAEA police constable in a marked police car came across a car crash, a robbery in progress, a rape or a murder, they would have to pass by unless they are willing to rely on the powers of citizen's arrest, such as you and I have, Mr. O'Brien. The public will not understand that. 
 The Minister in the other place also said that the constabulary lacked expertise. He said that the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police have powers of emergency action for two reasons: 
 ''First, they are regularly policing the general public and have developed a level of expertise in dealing with the public across a wide range of incidents and circumstances.'' 
A member of a police force who constantly polices state property that is proactively and sometimes violently demonstrated against, such as Aldermaston or other bases, would have a good idea of the level of expertise required in those circumstances. Many officers involved in such policing are more experienced than most constabulary officers. 
 The second reason would be if 
''it has been established that the number of situations that have arisen which would require the use of those extended powers justifies their being available in those circumstances, and none of that is true of the UKAEA Constabulary.'' 
That is extraordinary and means that we will not train people and give them powers because we do not think that certain circumstances are likely to arise. Does that 
 mean that we should not train the Metropolitan police on how to handle a murder because it does not happen often? 
 The Minister in the other place continued: 
 ''The Government are concerned that the constabulary should not have powers until there is an established operational need—that is the criterion—and constabulary officers will not be in a position regularly to exercise such powers.'' 
Once again, that argument means that we should not bother to train the police because they will not often have to deal with the hijack of a ship on the high seas. However, the expertise of those police officers is unique in circumstances such as policing demonstrations in international waters or if a ship bearing nuclear cargo enters our territorial waters. 
 The Minister in the other place went on to say: 
 ''It is a small constabulary and reacting to circumstances and demands from other forces might also divert it from the core tasks of protecting civil nuclear sites and materials.'' 
That is bizarre. My county constabulary is the smallest in the country, yet it regularly has to police the most densely populated military area in the country. It interfaces with the MOD police and the military police to look after the state's interests at the army's headquarters at Wilton, the country's biggest training area on Salisbury plain, Porton down, Boscombe down military airfield and a number of other installations. Therefore, that argument does not wash. 
 Another important point is the liability of members of the police who intervene in an incident as a private citizen. If an off-duty policeman comes across a civil disturbance, such as rape, murder, burglary or a car crash, he will make it known that he is a policeman. He will almost certainly be carrying a warrant to prove as much. Knowing that he has full constabulary power, he will be able to take control of the situation and use his training and expertise to regulate it. That power will not be available to any of the police officers we are discussing. I emphasise that they are trained in the same place by the same people and to the same standard as the Metropolitan police and every other county constabulary. There is no difference between them: the quality is the same. Why, therefore, are they not considered appropriate to have the full constabulary power? 
 My noble Friend Baroness Byford asked about liability in such circumstances; for example, what would happen if one of the excellent UKAEA constables was helping at an incident and something went wrong. A police constable is covered in such circumstances but if he is acting under civilian powers, he can be sued by insurance companies or by the persons concerned. That is a grave disadvantage, but all that Lord Triesman, the Minister in the other place, could say in response was: 
 ''I wish I could give a simple answer. I cannot do that—not because I wish to evade the question, but because the number of possible circumstances is huge and the extent of liability would reflect those circumstances.''——[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 566-567.]
Lord Triesman said that he would write to Baroness Byford ''with further indications''. I have not seen his letter, so I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know what Lord Triesman said about the matter. 
 It is extraordinary that we are asking special police to undertake serious responsibilities, which require a completely different range of skills and knowledge. They are not just guarding gates and checking round the perimeter; they have a specialist knowledge of how to guard very sensitive cargoes. In, I think, 1987, when a nuclear depth charge fell off a lorry outside West Dean naval arms depot, which is in my constituency, I was enormously relieved that members of the UKAEA constabulary were present because they knew exactly what to do. Of course, the chief constable of Wiltshire had primacy, but he was able to rely on their expertise. 
 The Government should rethink this proposal, which is petty and not in the public interest. Does it protect the Treasury? I do not think so. It makes no difference to the Treasury if an officer has full constabulary power; he is there, on the pay roll, doing the same job, but the Government are depriving him of the influence and status that he deserves. 
 The Minister in the other place said that he would keep an open mind and be prepared to reconsider what happened here. I know that it is a complicated affair and I do not want to put the Minister on the spot. It is unfair to ask him to respond, and I will entirely understand if he reads out the brief. However, I want him to say that he would be willing to reconsider the proposal and come back on Report, because it is important to get this right. I hope that I have been able to express the frustration of this small but excellent police force in a non-partisan way and that I will have support from both sides of the House for my request that the Government should look at the matter again and table new proposals on Report.

Norman Baker: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for making the case for his amendment. The points he made justify the need for clear answers.
 I shall make one or two short points, which are not unconnected with the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised and on which I should welcome clarification. There are one or two inconsistencies in clause 59, which I shall try to tease out. Subsection (1)(b) proposes that the powers of a constable should be given for a radius of 5 km within a nuclear site. Quite apart from the points made by the hon. Gentleman, there seems to be some uncertainty as to where the 5 km limit is. Is the Minister really saying that a police officer pursuing someone or undertaking other activities will suddenly reach the 5 km boundary—assuming that he knows where it is—and say, ''Hang on, I can't go over this boundary''? That seems somewhat unlikely. In any case, how is an officer supposed to know where the 5 km boundary is? Will it be marked round every nuclear site with a piece of string, so that we all know how far 5 km is from the centre or, indeed, from the edge of that site? That seems a little ludicrous. People should either have 
 powers on site or have powers everywhere. It seems difficult to argue that creating a 5 km boundary is the right process. 
 Subsection (2), which relates to trans-shipment sites as opposed to relevant nuclear sites, does not refer to a 5 km boundary. Why is there a 5 km boundary for nuclear power stations, but not for trans-shipment sites? The same argument must apply, so again I fail to see the logic behind the proposals. 
 Subsection (3) is about an entirely different situation again. It relates to material that is in transit. Under this subsection, there are powers and privileges at every other place when that appears to be expedient, and that appears to be almost anywhere. Again, the matter is not entirely clear and subsections (1), (2) and (3) seem to be contradictory. 
 One crumb of comfort for the hon. Member for Salisbury is subsection (4), which says that in certain, narrow circumstances, a member of the constabulary will have the right to act as a constable. He may do so to pursue a person who has interfered with or removed nuclear material or attempted to do so. That provision is obviously very sensible.

Robert Key: There is another dimension to this. The operational requirements are set out in a national policing protocol, which we have not seen. Then there are the memorandums of understanding between the Home Office and each different Home Office constabulary concerned. Then there is the question of the Scottish forces, because they are different. We do not know what the Association of Chief Poilce Officers in Scotland has said, and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us that.

Norman Baker: That is a further complication. It is important to get some clarification and clarity. Clause 59 is not entirely satisfactory. I say that having served on the Committee that considered what became the Police Reform Act 2002. We considered the various complications that Home Office Ministers at that time attempted to address. Members of this Committee have various hats on. We are interested in energy or the environment. However, none of us is an expert—well, one or two of us may be—on police matters. With all due respect to the Minister, he has his hands full dealing with energy and post offices, without worrying about police matters. It is therefore important that, collectively, we obtain external advice. The hon. Member for Salisbury has made a case as to why the clause should be reconsidered, and I hope that the Minister will take that argument on board.

Stephen Timms: As the hon. Member for Salisbury made clear, his proposals would allow members of the civil nuclear constabulary to exercise police powers and privileges in a broader range of circumstances than is currently provided for in the Bill or is the case for the UKAEA constabulary. In considering his points, it is important to be clear about the purposes of the civil nuclear constabulary. Under clause 55(2), its primary function is to protect civil nuclear licensed sites and to safeguard nuclear material in Great Britain and elsewhere. The civil nuclear constabulary is not, therefore, part of general public policing provision
 throughout the UK. It is quite small, specialised and highly trained, and has a key role in protecting civil nuclear licensed sites and material from the threat of terrorism. It is paid for by the nuclear operators specifically for that purpose. The jurisdiction set out in this clause reflects that role.
 The measure allows members of the constabulary to exercise police powers and privileges at civil nuclear licensed sites for an area of 5 km around them, which allows them to protect and operate on the sites. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for drawing attention to that important point, although I do not think that they would have too much difficulty working out where such areas are, contrary to his assertion. They can also exercise those powers at a transhipment site such as a port—and anywhere—in order to protect nuclear material in transit or to pursue a person reasonably believed to have removed or interfered with nuclear material.

Norman Baker: Irrespective of whether 5 km is manageable—the Government do not have an answer to that—if it is necessary for the protection of nuclear sites to have the 5 km radius, why is it not necessary for a transhipment site to have such a radius?

Stephen Timms: In the case of civil nuclear licensed sites, we take the view that there is a permanent requirement to protect such sites from people who might want to take material away from them. The position is different in a port, or anywhere else, through which material is passing. That is the distinction.
 The hon. Member for Salisbury made a well-informed contribution; he spoke on Second Reading about the matter. However, the Bill gives greater flexibility to the constabulary to exercise police powers throughout Britain than at present. The jurisdiction in clause 59 is appropriate for the purpose for which the constabulary is in place. He made comparisons with the Ministry of Defence police and the British Transport Police. He is right; the additional powers that were the subject of amendment No. 58 were extended to those organisations by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. However, I do not think that a standard formula applies here. 
 At the time that that Act was introduced, consideration was given to the jurisdiction of the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police and the UKAEA constabulary. As a result, the UKAEA constabulary's jurisdiction was extended to all civil licensed nuclear sites and the area 5 km around such sites to allow greater flexibility to escort any civil nuclear material and to protect transhipment sites. In other words, the matter was considered before the 2001 legislation, and the changes indicated by the hon. Gentleman were made to the arrangements for the MOD police and the British Transport police. A view was taken then about what was appropriate for the UKAEA constabulary, which is reflected in this Bill. In particular, the 5 km zone is not available to the MOD police or British Transport police, so that gives the UKAEA constabulary the flexibility that it needs. 
 There may be circumstances where a member of the constabulary comes across an incident that requires intervention while outside their normal jurisdiction that is not related to nuclear sites or materials. Such incidents are likely to be rare, and they certainly do not seem to have led to a serious problem for the last 50 years, during which the constabulary has been operating without the extended jurisdiction that is the subject of amendment No. 58. Of course, one could conceive of circumstances in which it would be helpful for such additional powers to be available, but I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not draw any attention to any actual circumstances. As I say, there does not seem to have been any problem in the past.

Norman Baker: Will the Minister set out any objections to such an extension of powers?

Stephen Timms: It is interesting that the Liberal Democrat spokesman raises that point. What is our principal approach to the extension of powers and privileges that affect other members of society to those who do not currently have them? My view is that we should extend those powers only if a clear case has been made for doing so. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that we should give them to people in case they might one day need them. There must be a clear case for extending powers that affect people's liberties before the extension is made, rather than extension being the default position.
 There are currently 120 cases a month that require British Transport police to operate outside of the railways. Between 1995 and 1999, there were more than 15,000 cases in which MOD officers provided assistance to Home Office forces. I have not seen any convincing evidence or case for a similar operational requirement for the constabulary under discussion. 
 The hon. Member for Salisbury referred to the fact that the Minister in another place had made it clear that the operational case for extending the powers of the constabulary will be kept under review. I can confirm that again, but I would be very surprised if the Government changed their view on the matter between now and consideration on Report. If the need for extension becomes clear, I envisage that it will be taken account of in future Home Office legislation. It is important to extend those powers and privileges only if there is a clear case for doing so, and at the moment there is not. 
 The hon. Gentleman was a bit dismissive of the important point made by my noble Friend that police numbers in the constabulary will be at a level designed to enable it to fulfil its primary function. That is important because we should not allow the constabulary to be diverted from its central task by reducing the numbers securing a licensed site while responding to a traffic incident, for example. 
 The UKAEA Police Federation wants to see its powers extended and it suggests that there could be dire implications for national security if they were not. 
 I have not seen any evidence to substantiate such a claim, and the onus is on those who advocate the extension of powers over the default position of non-extension. 
 The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to what ACPO said. I listened to the wording that he quoted from the ACPO submission, and I think he correctly quoted that ACPO would be content for such an extension. ACPO did not make the case for it, however. ACPO would not object to an extension, but that is different from it advancing an argument in favour of the change. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked me what ACPO Scotland said. In its submission it pointed out that the intended provision would not allow the civil nuclear constabulary to go to the assistance of other forces. It did not make the case for extending the powers; it simply made an observation. 
 On the basis of the evidence that I have heard, the way in which we have drawn up the powers is appropriate given the role that we need the constabulary to play. If things were to change, it would be possible to extend the powers, but in the absence of a clear case for extension at the moment we should not simply extend them in case they are needed in the future.

Robert Key: Of course, the Minister is right that the legislation proposes wider powers than currently exist. The powers are quite different, but they are wider than they were. He said that we should have regard to the constabulary's primary function, which is the protection of those particular sites. He then said, however, that the function of the UKAEA police was ''not part of public policing''. That is not so.
 I do not know what it feels like in East Ham, but in Salisbury—where we have regular policing from not only the county constabulary, but the MOD police, the military police, the provost marshals, the UKAEA police and the British Transport police—we feel safe because there is such an interface. We know that they all have constabulary power, except the UKAEA constabulary, who cannot intervene. The Minister seriously misjudges the situation if he thinks that a marked police car with uniformed police and flashing blue lights will not stop at the scene of an accident because the police officers in the situation have not got the right protocol—the memorandum of understanding—and because they judge that it is too dangerous for them to get involved because they have only citizens' rights. 
 The Minister also gave me no answer on the question of liability. He misjudges public perception of those circumstances. I am sure that in the not-too-distant future we will return to the matter again. It is all a matter of judgment, and the Minister has made the judgment that he will not make any concession between now and consideration on Report. I am disappointed, and I know that there will be many sad policemen in the UKAEA, who will be disappointed 
 that the Labour Government have let them down on this matter, as well as on so much else. I shall therefore press the matter to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 60 to 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 - Charges

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: I seek clarification from the Under-Secretary of what the clause will lead to. I would like an example of where those charges might be levelled.
 I presume that the clause concerns recouping money from, for example, British Energy. If that is the case, can the Under-Secretary say how agreement would be reached between ''that person''—to quote subsection (1)(a)—and the police authority, or how that would be determined by the Secretary of State, as provided for in subsection (1)(b). What sort of services will be recouped in terms of costs? Will the Under-Secretary also confirm that the full cost will be recovered, and that there will not be a net expenditure to the police authority?

Nigel Griffiths: I hope that I can help. Under the current funding of the constabulary as part of the UKAEA, the costs of providing policing services to BNFL and Urenco are recovered. Within the UKAEA, the constabulary is treated as a separate accounting unit, recovering its costs from internal customers.
 The new arrangements for the constabulary will be based on those that already exist, which appear to work well. The constabulary polices a few well-defined organisations, and the proposed arrangements are therefore fairly straightforward to administer. As is standard practice for non-departmental public bodies, the details of the authority's financial arrangements will be set out in its financial memorandum. I hope that 
 that satisfies the hon. Gentleman that the established arrangements, which appear to have served us well, will continue. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clause 65 - Inspection

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: I hope to ask a question that is tangential, although not directly related. Is the constabulary covered by the Independent Police Complaints Commission set up under the Police Reform Act 2002?

Nigel Griffiths: I am checking my brief, but I am not entirely sure whether that is the case.

Stephen Timms: There is to be a voluntary agreement.

Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for communicating to me the fact that the constabulary will have a voluntary agreement to be so covered.

Norman Baker: I am not sure whether to welcome a voluntary agreement. If the Government are not planning a statutory requirement for the constabulary to come under the IPCC, I will regret that. Under the IPCC arrangements, members of the public have the right to complain about the behaviour of a police officer. It is possible that members of the public may interact with officers of the constabulary, because they may be within 5 km of a nuclear site. It would be wrong if they did not have that statutory right to invoke the complaints procedure.
 A voluntary agreement presumably means that the Government intend that the constabulary should come under the IPCC. If they have that intention, why is it not being put on a statutory footing?

Nigel Griffiths: I am happy to write to the Committee before the next sitting to set out the arrangements.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clause 67 - Civil Nuclear Police Federation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: My question concerns the rights of the members of the constabulary. What is their position if they identify a practice, process or individual act that they regard as inappropriate and believe should be investigated? If they exercise the right to report that, but the practice, process or act is not corrected, where do they stand in terms of the Official Secrets Act or their code of conduct? What is their position if they want to draw to the attention of the public, a Select Committee or another body their legitimate concerns about radioactive or nuclear matters that have not been satisfactorily dealt with internally?

Nigel Griffiths: The clause sets out the role and responsibilities of the Civil Nuclear Police Federation in similar terms to those of other statutory federations and follows closely the precedent of section 59 of the Police Act 1996. It enables the Secretary of State to give statutory recognition to the Civil Nuclear Police Federation to represent members of the constabulary in matters affecting welfare and efficiency. That role is currently undertaken by the UKEA Police Federation, which is a non-statutory body, although it has sole negotiating rights for members of the constabulary. I believe that the constabulary is covered by the whistleblowers Act, and I am happy to elaborate on that in writing if further clarification is required.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 68 to 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 14 agreed to. 
 Clauses 73 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 15 agreed to. 
 Clauses 79 to 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 - Expenditure on nuclear related matters

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: The clause relates specifically to money to be provided by Parliament and refers to
''any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, under or as a result of'' 
any option from British Energy. Will the Minister explain the background to the clause with particular reference to any part of British Energy that might be sold by the company before the Secretary of State's authority under the clause is exercised?

Michael Weir: My point follows on from that. I raised the matter earlier, but I am still waiting for an explanation of what the clause means, despite the Secretary of State's assurance on Second Reading that the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services would deal with that.
 I am concerned that it appears to be envisaged that British Energy could sell one of its nuclear power stations to a third party, and I am not clear at what point it could do that. I appreciate that the restructuring of British Energy is ongoing, but I would like clarification. Is it envisaged that as part of that restructuring British Energy could sell some of its power stations to a third party or that it could be broken up into constituent parts that would then, in effect, become third parties? 
 It seems from the explanatory notes that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will have the power to acquire British Energy's shareholding in Nirex, and I wonder whether that is a clue to what is anticipated for Nirex. That was not made clear earlier, so will the Minister clarify it? Is it proposed that Nirex will be subsumed at some point by the NDA?

Nigel Griffiths: Hon. Members are right in that the clause extends the Secretary of State's powers to spend money on matters relating to British Energy. They were confirmed in the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003. The need for the additional authority followed on after the 2003 Act was passed as a result of detailed documentation setting out the treatment of British Energy's liabilities going forward. To answer the question directly, the clause will allow spending on acquiring and operating any former British Energy nuclear power station that has since been acquired by a third party.
 The clause will allow moneys to be spent on acquiring British Energy's shareholding in Nirex. We have included that option to simplify any future restructuring of Nirex and to enable Nirex to operate without involvement from British Energy when it might no longer have a financial interest in its work. The clause will also allow ongoing expenditure in respect of the two options that we have taken up as part of the restructuring of British Energy.

Michael Weir: My point relates to the Minister's remarks on selling nuclear power stations. I am still not entirely clear: would what we are talking about cover a future sale to a third party as part of the restructuring of British Energy? In effect, would we be selling on a nuclear power station to a third party with the guarantee of picking up the decommissioning tab for that particular station from now on, or does that apply only to previously sold stations? Have any stations been sold and are any in third-party hands?

Nigel Griffiths: It is not the intention to breach the ''polluter pays'' principle. The clause relates to situations in which ongoing expenditure is necessary, whether or not for the operation of any former British Energy nuclear power station acquired by a third party. The purpose of the clause is to authorise the Government to incur ongoing expenditure in respect of the options that have been taken up as part of the restructuring of British Energy. It covers the eventuality that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Norman Baker: This is a little clause with quite a lot hidden behind it. The Members who have spoken so far have helped to uncover some of that. I want to
 return to the future of Nirex, which the Government failed to address this morning. I had no luck with the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services; perhaps his colleague will be more forthcoming. As the hon. Member for Angus quite correctly teased out, the clause affects Nirex, but Nirex is not even mentioned. I can only assume that whoever produced the Bill did a spell check that automatically deleted ''Nirex'' throughout the text—it has never reappeared. I can find no other explanation for its absence.
 The clause allows British Energy's holding in Nirex to be dealt with in the way that this Minister set out. It is apparent that the Government have a reasonably clear idea of what is going to happen to Nirex, if they have not already settled that. Throughout the Bill, there are provisions for the NDA that relate to Nirex. In this clause, there are provisions for British Energy that relate to Nirex. We are expected to agree such clauses without any indication from the Government of the future of Nirex. 
 Let me give the Government a third major opportunity to offer clarification, and I do not mind whether we hear from this Minister or the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services. I do not even mind if we hear from a Labour Back Bencher, who may be better informed than the Opposition. However, will someone please tell us what the Government intend to do with Nirex? It is not good enough to expect us to pass important legislation that may result in a multi-billion pound bill for the taxpayer without us knowing what the implications are. Can this Minister tell us what the future of Nirex will be? If not, will he tell us why and what matters are under consideration that prevent him from doing so?

Nigel Griffiths: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot tell him what the future of Nirex will be and why I cannot tell him. I think that this will be the third time that he has heard the reason today; they say that there are none so blind as those who will not see. The reason is straightforward. At the moment, consideration is taking place following the review. The Secretary of State will make an announcement on the conclusions of that review. That is as plain as the light of day.
 To help the hon. Gentleman with his other question, I will explain more clearly the reason for taking an option to acquire any stations that were formerly owned by British Energy. It is simply to protect the taxpayer. The Government have taken an option to buy each of the nuclear power stations owned by British Energy for £1 at the time that the owner plans to shut them, either to decommission them or to continue to operate them beyond that date. It may be possible to decommission them more cost-effectively in the public sector, using expertise gained on public sector nuclear sites. It might also be possible to defer commissioning costs that would fall on the nuclear liabilities fund, which is underwritten by the 
 Government by operating the stations and generating income beyond the date that the owner would otherwise shut those stations. 
 I am being plain with the hon. Gentleman and I hope that I have given straightforward answers to the questions that he asked, although doubtless he will want to analyse the conclusions of the review when they are announced and decide on his party's policies then.

Anne McIntosh: I am becoming increasingly interested in the future of Nirex as the debate proceeds. I admit to being relatively new to energy matters. I have been to Sellafield, but not as recently as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury.
 Mr. O'Brien, perhaps you can help the Minister in responding to the issue. There seems to be something highly irregular in the procedure surrounding the Bill. We are being asked, in good faith, to approve a clause to stand part of the Bill before we have a whisper or suspicion—soupccon as the French would say—of what the conclusions of the review will contain. Yet this morning we saw written statements that have slipped through and were cleverly identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, in which the Government are, by written statement, effectively requesting the House to approve additional resources before then and without putting a figure on those resources.

Robert Key: I have just discovered the Nirex briefing on the Energy Bill in my papers. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that Nirex told Committee members that:
 ''There are parts of the Bill where we feel clarification or Ministerial assurances would be helpful. Broadly speaking these fall into two areas: 
 the nature of the relationship between the short-term and long-term bodies; 
 clarity over the funding of the NDA and its implications for the funding of the long-term management option.'' 
Is my hon. Friend reassured that Ministers know what they are talking about?

Anne McIntosh: I am not, but I stand to be reassured and I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that I could be reassured if the Minister responded to those points.
 The Bill is either not very clever or not very regular in its procedure at this point. I hesitate because the Minister was slightly cheeky—I do not know whether I am allowed to say that—and responded to some remarks that Opposition Members made on Tuesday. [Hon. Members: ''Withdraw!''] I think ''cheeky fellow'' is all right. I am not quite on his Christmas card list yet, not even with a second-class stamp. 
 If there is one thing a Bill Committee stands for, it is scrutiny. We have been very restrained, particularly this afternoon. We have not insisted on going through the Bill line by line, clause by clause, and possibly, with hindsight, we have let many clauses slip through the net. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for drawing my attention to, if 
 not necessarily reminding me of, the Nirex brief contents. I am hesitant to let this clause go through, mindful of the fact that, at extremely short notice on the same day, we have been asked by written statement to approve emergency funds from the contingency fund. It seems completely back-to-front. 
 The Government are wedded, more than any other Government in living memory, to government by review, and it seems at the very least highly irregular that we are being asked to approve a particular clause before we have seen the contents of a review that will have enormous implications for the future of Nirex, about which Conservative Members care.

Michael Weir: As one who will, I suspect, never get on the Minister's Christmas card list, I can say that I find the explanation completely bewildering. What we seem to have here is yet another example of being told, ''They could be running them for energy, they could be selling them on to a third party''. There is lack of clarity all the way through this Bill as to exactly what is happening to a lot of these stations. Again a blank cheque is possibly being written for something of which we are not sure. As the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has rightly said, taken together with the statement today, there is an awful lot of money being pledged here without any adequate review or explanation. I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, to delete this clause because I was concerned about the implications. The more I hear about the clause, the more concerned I become about those implications. If she wishes to propose that it does not stand part of the Bill, I should be inclined to support her at this stage.

Nigel Griffiths: The issue here is based on an honest misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Vale of York voiced her fears—I do not think she used the phrase ''blank cheque'', although another hon. Member did—that today we are being asked to authorise sums of money before the conclusions of a review of where the money might be spent is settled and announced in Parliament. That is not what this clause does; it makes provision for the Government to incur ongoing expenditure. No sums are detailed here. Any sums in the future would be detailed, scrutinised and authorised by Parliament in the usual way. If this clause were deleted, it would simply mean the Government had no power to incur ongoing expenditure in respect of the options we have taken. We are asking for those powers to be granted, and any items of expenditure will be subject in future to the usual Parliamentary scrutiny. It is quite clear. If hon. Members do not want to authorise the powers for any ongoing expenditure, they should delete this clause. In my opinion, that would be the wrong thing to do. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 - Additional functions of UKAEA

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: I should like to ask the Minister briefly about clause 83(3)(a), which gives the UKAEA
''power to manage and commercially to exploit any land or other property of theirs that is no longer required by them for or in connection with the carrying out of their other functions''. 
That appears to give the UKAEA a green light to undertake activities that are not related to its core functions. It allows it to take its eye off the ball and diversify into other matters. Have I read that correctly? I think that the UKAEA should concentrate on its important tasks and not seek to diversify in the way allowed by the clause. Will the Minister reassure me by explaining what that measure means, and what limitations are placed on the activities of the UKAEA by the subsection?

Nigel Griffiths: We are clarifying the extent of the UKAEA's powers to manage the properties that it owns. It already has that management function and we believe that it should continue the work it has done. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has critical examples in mind of how it is managing its property portfolio at the moment. I understand that development ventures on sites like Harwell have been warmly welcomed and applauded. We now have a legislative opportunity to clarify and confirm UKAEA's powers in that regard.

Norman Baker: I am not sure that that entirely answers my point. Will the Minister confirm what I believe to be the position? Notwithstanding the diversification, which may or may not be a distraction from the organisation's main duties, will any funds accrued in this way be included in an annual report, and will he confirm that moneys raised in that way will be returned to the Exchequer? Will he also confirm what the position will be if UKAEA seeks to use the power to commercially exploit land, but does so in an incompetent manner and runs up a loss?

Nigel Griffiths: As I say, the examples to date have not raised questions about the judgment of UKAEA. I invited the hon. Gentleman to share any examples
 that he has of present property management about which he has concerns. The clause allows us to confirm their powers. On the question of finance, I cannot imagine the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry not taking into account any money made by UKAEA in a budget request it might make of Government. I am sure that my Treasury colleagues, as well as departmental colleagues, will examine the balance sheet closely.

Norman Baker: I am not going to cite an example; I have no examples to cite. I have no reason to think that the process has not worked well in so far as it has been operating. However, I am asking a question to which, with respect to the Minister, I have not yet had an answer. What happens in relation to the diversification of UKAEA's activities into managing such sites? What lengths can it go to? Is the clause an open invitation for it to use that power and, if so, does it have the experience to manage matters commercially? If it does not and cannot manage matters effectively, could UKAEA even run up a loss?
 I am trying to establish where the boundaries are and what controls are there to ensure that the matter is properly handled. I am not necessarily against the power, but I am seeking to delineate it.

Nigel Griffiths: If any impropriety or error of judgment led to a loss on the property portfolio, that would be treated differently from any change in the market of which they fell victim or indeed in tricky sites where property development might follow from clean-up and other costs. The economics might be more finely balanced there. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if a profit is made, it will be returned to the public funds, the Exchequer. That is true of any profits from land management operations in general.
 I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. I do not think there would be any intention to write blank cheques for foolish and irresponsible property developments. I am glad that he accepts that, so far, the track record does not appear to have given rise to concern, but he is right to ask questions about the future. I hope that I have reassured him. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 8 June at five minutes to Nine o'clock.